get_pageRetrieve the full content of a product document or PRD by its unique ID. Read-only tool; use list_pages to find the correct ID first.
Read one Page (doc / PRD) by id and return its full content. Read-only. Resolve the id first with list_pages — never guess it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Page id, from list_pages. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. It adds context about returning full content and the need to resolve the id first, but no additional behavioral details like error handling or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences that front-load the action and include a valuable caution ('never guess it'). Every word serves a purpose; no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what, how, and the safe read-only nature. It could describe the return structure in more detail, but 'full content' suffices for a page document.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with id already described as 'Page id, from list_pages.' The description reinforces this with 'Resolve the id first with list_pages' but adds no new syntax or format beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads one Page by id and returns full content, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_pages (which lists pages) and get_task/get_conversation by explicitly naming 'Page (doc / PRD)'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to resolve the id with list_pages and never guess it, providing a clear prerequisite and companion tool. It doesn't enumerate exclusions but gives direct and actionable guidance for when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.